CALCULATION

OF THE TAIL-PIPE NOISE OF EXHAUST SYSTEMS

WITH WAVE

Rolf Jebasinski
J. Eberspcher
73730 Esslingen
Germany

ABSTRACT
In the past the calculation of exhaust systems tailpipe noise was a problem which was only
unsatisfactorily solved. The following paper shows the
possibilities of engine simulation programs based on
one-dimensional Computational Fluid Dynamics
codes, such as WAVE, to calculate the tail-pipe noise
of exhaust systems. Comparison of simulation and
measurement show that it is possible to accurately
predict tail-pipe noise if the muffler, with all interior
piping systems, is correctly modeled. Even 3dimensional effects can be simulated with a special
modeling approach. In addition the backpressure can
be calculated so that the whole exhaust system can be
optimized with respect to tail-pipe noise and
backpressure.
With the new preprocessor KADOS for WAVE,
which significantly reduces the time for modeling
exhaust systems with WAVE, new potentials arise for
the development and optimization of exhaust systems.
INTRODUCTION
The time-to-market time for new automobiles has
decreased in the last years considerably. For this rea-

son the suppliers have to develop their products in

shorter time too. One possibility to approach this goal
are increased simulations of the specific characteristics of the product to reduce cost-intensive prototyping and tests.
Besides emission controls the noise attenuation is the
most important function of engine exhaust systems.
With increasingly stringent legislation and regulations
the demands made on exhaust systems increase
constantly.
The performance of an exhaust system is measured in
terms of tail-pipe noise, which is the sound pressure
level in a short distance to the tail-pipe. Different
concepts have been tested at Eberspcher over the
past, which promised a good prediction of the tail-pipe
noise.
Each development process is complicated by conflicting targets. In the case of exhaust systems these are
the demands for optimum noise reduction while
keeping backpressure at a minimum. In addition
certain package constraint exists, i.e. the position and
size of the mufflers are mostly fixed. The acoustic
optimization can therefore only be made with
variation of the duct diameter and the interior piping

system of the mufflers. Calculation methods should

therefore be able to predict the tail-pipe noise and the
backpressure for a complete exhaust system, including
mufflers with complex interior piping system
(perforated ducts and baffles).
Possible calculation methods are the Transfer Matrix
Method, Finite Elements Method (FEM), Boundary
Elements Method (BEM) or Computational Fluid
Dynamics Method ( CFD ).
The most common calculation method is the Transfer
Matrix Method (or four-pole theory). This method is
based on the linear one-dimensional wave propagation
in ducts and formulation of the individual elements
like ducts, area discontinuities and branches in
transfer matrices in analogy to the electric filter theory
[1,2].
Noise attenuation of simple mufflers can be calculated
with this method in frequency domain. The assumption of linear wave propagation restricts this method to
parts of the exhaust system where the sound pressure
level is less than 160 dB (i.e. down pipe, exhaust
manifold and catalyst cannot be calculated).
For the prediction of the tail-pipe noise the source
impedance (which is given by engine and exhaust
manifold) must be known, either through measurements or calculations.
This method has several disadvantages. It is not possible to calculate the backpressure with it. The engine
impedance is usually measured independent of the
given exhaust system. The response of the exhaust
system on the engine thus remains unconsidered.
Besides that the calculation of perforated ducts is not
solved completely. There are several competing
models for the description by perforated ducts
[3,4,5,6], which lead to different results (for a
comparison see [7]). Additionally these models are all
based on experimentally determined impedances of
the perforation, since non-linear effects play a role.
This non-linear behavior of the impedance appears

after Sullivan [8] already at a sound pressure level of

130 dB. Such levels are reached in nearly every rear
muffler.
One-dimensional CFD-programs, which also simulate
the thermodynamic processes in the engine, like
PROMO [9] and WAVE [10], can help here.
With these programs the insteady, non-linear gas flow
can be calculated in the entire exhaust system
including engine. One receives thus without detours
the tail-pipe noise under consideration of non-linear
effects in the exhaust system, as well as the backpressure of individual components in the exhaust system.
This contribution shows some comparisons between
measurements and WAVE-calculations of exhaust
systems tail-pipe noise.
ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF
MUFFLERS WITH WAVE
For the simulation of an exhaust system a
corresponding WAVE - model must be prepared. For
this purpose WAVE offers two main elements, ducts
and junctions. Junctions are volumes, which can be
connected to each other and to ducts. The following
section describes how mufflers are modeled with these
elements.
First we will take a very simple example, a concentric
tube resonator. This muffler has a perforated duct that
is enclosed by an outer can. The muffler is subdivided
into segments of length x. Each segment corresponds
to a volume or junction for the duct and the outer
resonator. Fig. 1 (b) shows this schematically.
The junctions representing the duct and the resonator
are connected in flow direction correspondingly. In
addition a connection exists between the junctions of
the duct and the resonator via a perforated wall.
The segment length x determines the frequency
resolution as well as the computing time. The smaller
the segments are, the higher the frequency resolution
but unfortunately the computing time too.

a)

x
b)

FIGURE 1:Concentric tube resonator (a) and WAVE

model (b), grey junctions represent the perforated
tube and white junctions the resonator.

With a segment length of 40 mm one reaches a good

precision up to 600 Hz. The computing time lies in
this case for a complete model of an exhaust system
(inclusively simple intake system and engine) at 10
speed points on a RISC-Workstation by approximately
1-2 hours.
Generally the interior piping system of a muffler is
much more complex than in the above-mentioned
example. Then the muffler must be subdivided in more
segments. Fig. 2 presents an example of a typical
series rear muffler.
The modeling of a complete exhaust system with
manual entry in the WAVE input file can take several
days depending on the complexity of the muffler.
Changes in the geometry of the muffler, i.e. through
displacement of a baffle or change of a duct diameter,
lead to a recalculation of the cross-sections and
volumes of the junctions and ducts and a new input
into the WAVE file.
Optimization of mufflers would therefore be very time
consuming.

FIGURE 2: rear muffler 1 (a) and WAVE model (b)

To simplify this entry and to shorten the development

process
the
graphic
preprocessor
KADOS
(Knowledge Based Automated Design of Intake and
Exhaust Systems) for WAVE was developed by an
international consortium under participation of
Eberspcher.
KADOS offers different elements (perforated ducts,
bent ducts, baffles etc.) which can be placed in the
muffler with the computer mouse as in drawing
programs. Fig. 3 (b) shows the geometry input mask
for oval-end mufflers. Fig. 3 (a) shows the CAD model of the rear muffler sketched in Fig. 3 (b).
After establishing the model of the exhaust system on
the screen KADOS generates a WAVE input file.
Changes in geometry or in the interior piping system
of mufflers can now be made very quickly.

Fig. 4 shows the tail-pipe noise of measurement and

WAVE simulation. Up To 3000 rev/min the curves
agree very well. The calculated level lies only 3 dB(A)
below the measured level.

s o u n d p re s s u re le v e l [d B (A )]

115
110
105
100
95
90

measurement
WAVE calculation

85

WAVE calculation + flow generated noise

WAVE calculation (mufflers modeled as expansion chambers)

80
1000

2000

3000
4000
s p e e d [re v /m in ]

5000

6000

FIGURE 4: Tail-pipe noise rear muffler 1,

measurement and WAVE calculation, A-weighted.

FIGURE 3: rear muffler 2 (a) and KADOS input

mask (b).

Results
Measurement and calculation of the tail-pipe noise
were done on a Mercedes Benz C200 (4 cylinder 2
liter SI engine) with the series exhaust system. The
exhaust system consists of a catalyst with two
monoliths, middle muffler (simple concentric
resonator with two chambers) and rear muffler 1 (see
Fig. 2). The engine data (Combustion profile, valve
timing etc.) were taken from Ref. [11].
Tail-pipe noise was measured and calculated at a
distance of 22 cm. The experimental conditions were
full load acceleration. Since WAVE is not able to
simulate absorption material, the absorption material
in both mufflers was removed.

A calculation with simple expansion chambers instead

of the original mufflers is shown in Fig. 4 for comparison. The tail-pipe noise of this configuration
deviates clearly from the experimental results and the
calculation with the original muffler.
At 3000 rev/min flow generated noise becomes
dominant, which lead to a difference between
measured and calculated values.
Besides sound pressure the flow velocity and the gas
temperature are known from the WAVE calculation.
Thus the flow generated noise can be calculated with
the empirical formula from Green and Smith [12].
According to this formula the sound power level (Lw)
depends on the flow velocity (v), gas temperature (T),
diameter of the inlet tube (D) and the efficiency factor
of the rear muffler (Ew).
Lw = Ew - 17.5*logT + 20*log(D) + 45*log(v) +1,87

Efficiency factors were taken from Ref. [12]. The

curve thus calculated is displayed in Fig. 4. The
agreement is good for such simple assumptions.
At 5500 rev/min the calculated backpressure of
115 mbar lies somewhat over the measured value of
95 mbar (see also Table 1).

cause larger deviation between measurement and

calculation.
Fig. 6 shows WAVE-calculated third-octave spectra at
2500 rev/min and measured values. The agreement is
good.
100
2500 rev/min

110
ressure level [dB(A)]

2. engine order

100
90
meas urement

80
s o u n d p re s s u re le v e l [d B (A )]

W A V E c alc ulation

70

90

80

110
100

4. engine order

90
80

FIGURE 6: Third-octave spectra of rear muffler 1 at

70

2500 rev/min, A-weighted.

110
100

6. engine order

90
80
70
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

s p e e d [re v /m in ]

FIGURE 5: Sound pressure level of the 2.,4. and 6.

engine order of rear muffler 1, A-weighted.

Fig. 5 shows the level of 2. , 4. and 6. engine orders,

which dominate the tail-pipe noise. The measured and
calculated values of the 2. engine order are in excellent agreement. At 4. and 6. engine order the agreement is good in the lower speed range. The calculated
6. engine order shows a small shift in speed compared
to the measurements. The reason for this is still object
of further investigations. At higher speed and
therefore higher frequencies flow generated noise

For further comparisons rear muffler 1 was replaced

by rear muffler 2 (shown in Fig. 3 (a)).
In Fig. 7 the level difference between both mufflers in
the dominating engine order are presented. The
agreement between measurement and calculation is
good.
Above 3000 rev/min the level differences at the 4. and
6. order show some deviation between measurement
and calculation, which could be due to flow generated
noise.
For the second rear muffler the WAVE calculation
yielded a backpressure of 102 mbar in comparison
with measured 87 mbar.
A comparison of the backpressures show that the
relative change of the backpressure can be determined
with the WAVE calculation. The absolute values lie
approximately 15 % above the measured values.

attempt was made to modify the muffler without

change in volume and to reduce the 3. engine order.
Fig.8 shows the level difference between initial design
and modified design, both calculated by WAVE.
Through an additional perforation in the inlet pipe a
reduction of 4 dB at 1800 rev/min has been reached in
agreement with the measurements.

0
-4
-8
-1 2
-1 6

meas urement

2. engine order

W A V E c alc ulation

0
-4
-8

-1 2
-1 6

m eas urem ent

4. engine order

-2 0
0
-4
-8
-1 2
-1 6
-2 0
-2 4 6. engine order
-2 8
1000
2000

3000

4000

5000

s p e e d [re v /m in ]

level difference 3. engine order [dB]

le v e l d iffe re n c e [d B ]

-2 0

W A V E c alc ulation

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
900

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800

speed [rev/min]

FIGURE 7: Level difference between rear muffler 1

FIGURE 8: Level difference between optimized

and rear muffler 2; 2., 4. and 6. engine order.

muffler and original muffler for a truck; 3. engine

order.

Table 1:
WAVE - calculation

measurement

rear muffler 1

115 mbar

95 mbar

rear muffler 2

102 mbar

87 mbar

WAVE is thus very well suited for the optimization of

mufflers, with regard to noise attenuation and backpressure, through modifications of the interior piping
system.
A further example will illustrate this. In a current
project a muffler for a V6 diesel truck is being
developed. The tail-pipe noise of this vehicle was
dominated through the 3. engine order.
Especially at the rated speed of 1800 rev/min very
high sound pressure levels were observed with the
first design of the muffler. With the calculation the

3-dimensional modeling of mufflers

The investigations described in the previous paragraphs were based on one-dimensional modeled
mufflers. So the frequency resolution is limited to
approximately 600 - 1000 Hz depending on the
segmentation length x in flow direction.
It will be shown in this paragraph that is possible to
extend this frequency limit much farther by using a 3dimensional mesh for the muffler under investigation.
The simulations will be compared to Transmission
Loss measurements from Selamet et al. [13].
Fig. 9 (b) shows the 1-dimensional mesh of a simple
expansion chamber. Each segment is a volume. The
dimensions of the chamber are shown in Fig. 9 (a).

50
m eas urem ent
B E M c alc ulation

Trans mis s ion Loss [dB]

40

W A V E with x = 31 m m

30

20

10

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Frequenc y [Hz ]

FIGURE 10: Transmission Loss measurement, 3dimensional BEM calculation and 1-dimensional
WAVE-calculation of the expansion chamber from
Fig. 9.

FIGURE 9: Dimensions of the expansion chamber

(a) 1-dimensional WAVE-model (b) and
3-dimensional WAVE-model (c).

The first radial cross mode propagates at a frequency

of 2737 Hz. Nevertheless multidimensional behavior
can be observed at lower frequencies depending on the
length/diameter ratio as shown in Ref. [13]. Fig. 10
displays the calculated Transmission Loss for a 1dimensional WAVE model of this muffler. For
comparison the measured Transmission Loss and the
result of a 3-dimensional BEM calculation, adapted
from Ref.[13], is printed in Fig. 10.
The 1-dimensional WAVE calculation deviates clearly
from the measurements and the BEM calculation at
frequencies above 2000 Hz. Minor differences can be
observed between 1000 and 2000 Hz.

Therefore the modeling of the expansion chamber

with WAVE was revised. In addition to the
segmentation in x-direction a second segmentation in
radial direction was made. This can be accomplished
by the YJunction element in WAVE. Because of the
rotational symmetry a radial segmentation is sufficient
for a 3-dimensional WAVE mesh. Fig. 11 shows the
Transmission Loss of this model (x = 31mm and r
= 30 mm).
The deviation between calculation and measurement is
much smaller. The peak at 2500 Hz can be observed
now, however with a shift to lower frequencies.
To improve this result the segmentation length in xand r-direction has been varied (see Fig. 11). Reducing
only one segmentation length gives worse results,
whereas decreasing x and r by an equal amount
yields a better result as can be seen in Fig. 11. In the
case of x=15 mm and r=15 mm the predicted peak
is very close to the measured one and the minimum at
2200 Hz is captured well. So it seemed to be important
to use equal segmentation length in every direction to
capture 3-dimensional effects.

50
m eas urem ent
W A V E x = 31 m m , r = 30 m m

Trans mis s ion Loss [dB]

40

W A V E x = 15 m m , r = 30 m m
W A V E x = 31 m m , r = 15 m m
W A V E x = 15 m m , r = 15 m m

30

20

10

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Frequency [dB]

FIGURE 11: Transmission Loss calculations with

different segmentation length r and x in the
WAVE-model.

To support this a second expansion chamber was

modeled, which had a length of 94 mm. The result of
the WAVE model with segmentation lengths of 15 and
30 mm in both directions is plotted in Fig. 12 together
with the measured results. This example shows that
well beneath the cut-off frequency of the first radial
mode multidimensional wave propagation is apparent.
25
m eas urem ent
W A V E 1-D x = 31 m m

Trans mis s ion Loss [dB]

20

W A V E 3-D x = 31 m m , r= 30 m m
W A V E 3-D x = 15 m m , r= 15 m m

15

10

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Frequenc y [Hz ]

Figure 12: Transmission Loss calculation with

WAVE of an expansion chamber with l=93 mm.

Up to now these 3-dimensional effects were only

accessible with 3-dimensional simulation methods as
BEM and FEM. With the YJunction WAVE offers
an element that can be used to make a quasi 3-dimensional mesh of a muffler, so that the 3-dimensional
behavior of the sound pressure waves can be
calculated with a 1-dimensional CFD Code.
This method offers the advantage of enabling nonlinear calculation of the insteady flow excited by an
engine. This cannot be done with BEM and FEM,
since they are purely acoustic calculation methods
(i.e. linear without inclusion of flow).
The longer computation times, compared to the
1-dimensional modeling approach could be a
disadvantage.
Summary
The comparison of measurement and simulation on
an exhaust system in a series vehicle has shown that
one can receive a good prediction of the dominating
engine orders with WAVE by using a 1-dimensional
modeling approach.
Thus level differences between different rear mufflers
are well predicted in the lower speed range (up to
3000 rev/min).
In the higher speed range (above 3000 rev/min) strong
flow generated noise sets in. This flow generated
noise can be determined too with a simple empirical
formula, and the gas velocity and gas temperature
obtained from the WAVE calculation.
Since beside the sound pressure level the backpressure
can be deduced from the WAVE results, WAVE is
well suited as supporting tool for the development and
optimization of exhaust systems.
With the new graphic preprocessors KADOS the
modeling of exhaust system has been simplified,
which reduces the time for the establishing of a
WAVE model considerably.

New possibilities are offered by adapting the 3dimensional modeling approach, presented in the last
paragraph, into KADOS, which might extend the
frequency resolution into the kHz range.

References
[1] M.L. Munjal, Acoustics of Ducts and Mufflers,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1987
[2] K. Lehringer, Automobil Industrie, 1988, 6
[3] J.W. Sullivan and M.J. Crocker, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 64, 1978, 207
[4] J.W. Sullivan, , Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America 66, 1979, 772
[5] K. Jayaraman and K. Yam, Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 69, 1981, 390
[6] K.N. Rao and M.L. Munjal, Proceedings of the
1984 Nelson Acoustics Conference,
Madison WC
[7] K.S. Peat, Journal of Sound and Vibration 123,
1988, 199
[8] J.W. Sullivan, , Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America 66, 1979, 779
[9] H. Seifert, Motortechnische Zeitschrift 51,
1990, 11
[10] T. Morel, M.F. Fleming and L. LaPointe,
SAE 900679
[11] J. Abthoff, D. Httebrucker, W. Zahn and H.
Bockel, Motortechnische Zeitschrift 53,
1992, 496
[12] A.J. Green and P.N. Smith, IMechE 1988,
C17/88, 47
[13] A. Selamet and P.M. Radavich,
SAE 950544